Putting multidimensional inequalities in human wellbeing at the centre of transitions
Authors: Caroline Zimm, Thomas Schinko, Shonali Pachauri
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2022)

Jason Hickel and colleagues1Hickel J O'Neill D Fanning A Zoomkawala H National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017.Lancet Planet Health. 2022; 6: e342-e349Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar reported large inequalities in global resource extraction, which has led to an ecological crisis. Hickel and colleagues show that high-income countries are responsible for 74% of global excess material use of equitable and sustainable boundaries from 1970 to 2017. Therefore, the authors suggested that high-income countries should undergo post-growth and degrowth transformations. Adding to Hickel and colleagues’ convincing assessment, we want to introduce a broader focus on distributive justice in human and planetary wellbeing, which goes beyond resource extraction. We provide a broad view of the multiple dimensions of inequality, capturing enablers (eg, material use) and the effects of resource use that act as barriers to human wellbeing (eg, air pollution). We follow the theory of human needs with the universal goal of avoiding serious harm across the globe and across generations,2Doyal L Gough I A theory of human needs.Crit Soc Policy. 1984; 4: 6-38Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar and enabling capabilities and opportunities needed for a decent life.3Nussbaum MC Women and human development: The capabilities approach.Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, 2001Google Scholar, 4Sen A Commodities and capabilities. Elsevier Science Publishers, Oxford1985Google Scholar We argue that such a comprehensive focus on human and planetary wellbeing allows responsibilities to be shared more fairly in any transition process. The figure shows Lorenz curves that represent current multidimensional inequalities. There is an unequal global distribution for several indicators used in the literature reflecting the dominating development paradigm.3Nussbaum MC Women and human development: The capabilities approach.Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, 2001Google Scholar High-income countries (ie, 10–20% of the global population) account for 50% of enabling conditions. These countries benefit from the use of global commons, resources, and amenities (figure; B), but are less vulnerable to impeding effects (figure; A). Hickel and colleagues’ cumulative overshoot of material use is the most unequal (figure, B) For low-income countries, this trend is reversed. In fact, 50% of the global population account for only around 20% of enabling conditions (figure; B). However, low-income countries are affected disproportionately by effects that impede wellbeing (figure; A). These effects are often inflicted by high-income countries because low-income countries have contributed little to the deteriorating conditions of the planet. These low-income countries do not have access to the services and materials needed for decent living. These findings substantiate the argument made by Hickel and colleagues. If the cumulative approach of adding up the unequal distribution over time for other indicators is used, the inequalities are much larger. The problem lies in the unequal way resource use is characterised globally. Therefore, we support the suggestion made by Hickel and colleagues that high-income countries should reduce their resource use to fair and sustainable levels. These high-income countries also need to provide finances and support to other nations to address the effects of planetary infringement, minimal access to services and materials, and poor managing capacities. We suggest putting human wellbeing and planetary health at centre stage, by measuring and setting targets for reducing multiple inequalities, to avoid short-term and sectoral policies. In addition to addressing these distributional justice issues, policymakers need to consider aspects of procedural and corrective justice to design truly prescient policy interventions that will be widely accepted. All authors contributed to conceptualisation. CZ contributed to visualisation. All authors contributed to writing the original draft. We thank Raya Muttarak for insightful comments on the draft. We declare no competing interests. Download .pdf (.34 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary appendix National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017These results show that high-income nations are the primary drivers of global ecological breakdown and they need to urgently reduce their resource use to fair and sustainable levels. Achieving sufficient reductions will likely require high-income nations to adopt transformative post-growth and degrowth approaches. Full-Text PDF Open Access